Newmedia on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:43:21 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: <.nettime> The role of government in the development of the Internet |
Declan, Ronda: C'mon now . . . you're killin' me . . . What amazes me is that anyone could think that the "government" and the "market" are really separate at all . . . in any instrumental way when it comes to "strategic" technologies . . . like the Internet. All of this endless thrashing of "Taste Better" vs. "Less Filling" on nettime is getting truly hilarious. It was November 1998 when it became the official posture of the United States "government" that the FOUR "battlegrounds" were AIR, GROUND, SEA and CYBERSPACE . . . and this was after a 30+ year "Revolution in Military Affairs" which has totally recast what was described in 1959 by Eisenhower as the "Military Industrial Complex" . . . just at the moment that Daniel Bell was introducing the term "Post-Industrial" at the Salzburg Seminar in Austria, informing the informed that the "industrial" was no longer driving things. Military or otherwise. Doesn't anyone read their Toffler? Or, their Boulding? "War and Anti-War." <g> It's long been the "Military Information Complex" and the intimate association between "government" and the "market" (when it comes to "strategic" technologies, like the Internet) is the principle reason for the existence of the "Dulles Corridor" . . . not that incredible engineering school at Georgetown. (And, why was General Al "I'm in Control Here" Haig on the board of AOL for all those years . . . anyway?) Who do you think brought the suit against Microsoft? The "market"? The DoJ? The FCC? Or, the Pentagon? Those technologies which are essential to the "national interest" are ALWAYS under the control of the "government" . . . whose job it is to safeguard the "national interest." Today, that means the Internet. (Pay attention to Dave Farber when he speaks about "security matters" . . . or, if you prefer, stay confused . . .) When DoJ Anti-Trust head Joel Klein admonished the Supreme Court (as quoted on page A1 of today's NYTimes) that the Microsoft case was directly a concern of the "national interest," he wasn't speaking about market-share in the browser "market," fer crissakes. When Janet Reno used the term "revolution" FIVE times in her speech launching the Microsoft suit, she wasn't speaking about a song by the Beatles, fer double-crissakes. The "government" IS the "market" -- as prime-customer, as standard-setter, as "classified-briefer," as revolving-door employer, as research-granter and as HAMMER-when-you-ignore-them -- in all cases of technologies which are considered "strategic" and in the "national interest." Like super-computers. Or, lasers. Or, space. Or, energy. Or, the Internet. Face it . . . or it will one day be in your face . . . just ask Bill Gates . . . Best, Mark Stahlman _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold